A quick note about the theory of evolution. If evolution was just “change”, “adapt”, and “natural selection”, then we would ALL be evolutionists. But, this is not the case. The heart of the controversy is that all life evolved from a single organism. Evolution adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified. And some of those terms would be considered miraculous (e.g. convergence, and co-option). Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don’t question it. Critical thinking is a thing of the past. They will use contradicting data and modify the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism. If a theory makes a prediction and doesn’t turn out the way it should, then that theory adapts to the new evidence. This gives the illusion that evolution is the best theory for all life. Everything fits! And any other opposing theory that isn’t in line with naturalism is rejected.

Rhed wrote:If evolution was just “change”, “adapt”, and “natural selection”, then we would ALL be evolutionists.

As well we should be.

But, this is not the case. The heart of the controversy is that all life evolved from a single organism.

Fair enough, that's where creationists think the problem lies. The problem actually lies with them not understanding how science works and in that strange book of theirs that seems to claim creation is the only truth.

Evolution adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event

Many events that were unobserved can be easily explained. It's police work at its finest. Why you put such an emphasis on "unobserved" is really no news to anyone: You think that's the trump card! Unobserved = unexplainable. Well no, that's simply not the case.

By the by, "concocting terms" is the wrong word. "Evolution adapts by doing science"... well technically scientists do science, but your statement was wrong to begin with.

such as convergence

Observed.

analogous

Observed.

panspermia

Though technically evolution it has very little to do with the evolution of life on earth.

atavism

Observed!

incompleteness

Incompleteness as in "your argument is incomplete"?

conserved, trait, trait replacement, trait loss

You're just repeating yourself? Anyway, we can OBSERVE all of them.

co-option

Again, observed!

lamarkism

An outdated and incorrect first attempt at the theory.

concerted evolution

Also observed. What's your point? We can observe every single point you've brought forward here save two which are irrelevant, therefore evolution doesn't work?

All of these terms are not observable

Incorrect, all of these are easily observable and not even creationists debate that. They merely debate the conclusions drawn from the examples.

but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory.

Contradicting evidence? Do tell!

The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified.

Hmmmm no. There are ad hoc explanations in science, like the Aether used to be. Evolution however isn't. There's a huge difference between advancing science and coming up with ad hoc explanations. Learn the difference.

And some of those terms would be considered miraculous (e.g. convergence, and co-option).

Really? They're not miraculous in the least.

Convergence: If two different species live in very similar conditions, there's a chance they'll hit upon very similar strategies.This can be seen in humans as well: The bow was invented a few times, throwing spears, huts, etc. All look slightly different but they're all essentially the same.

Co-option (I think you meant Exaptation?): Evolving a trait for one purpose and then evolving to use that same trait for an entirely different purpose. This is at the heart of the rebuttal of irreducible complexity.Examples in humans:

Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don’t question it.

Incorrect use of the term "fact".Also, incorrect. I remember "Dollow's law" was recently (5 years ago) challenged.

They will use contradicting data and modify the theory so it fits the evidence.

Neither does that make sense nor is it true.

In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory.

And sometimes the other way around. And sometimes you do it very differently again.

The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism.

Incorrect. First data was gathered, then the theory was built, then more data was gathered, then the theory changed because of the new facts. And so on and so on until today.

You cannot falsify naturalism.

Actually you can: Give me a single instance where magic actually happened.

If a theory makes a prediction and doesn’t turn out the way it should, then that theory adapts to the new evidence.

And if a theory makes thousands of predictions and they all come true, that theory is fairly robust. Of course there will be some things we don't know yet and can't explain with our current understanding. Contrary to popular belief that's how science works.

This gives the illusion that evolution is the best theory for all life.

Not an illusion.

Everything fits!

Actually no, more things can't fit than do. But we haven't yet found those things.For example bunnies in the Cambrian, X-Men, cats giving birth to frogs, that sort of thing. Find me a Crocoduck and I will immediately recognize that evolution is wrong.

And any other opposing theory that isn’t in line with naturalism is rejected.

Incorrect. Any opposing theory that can't account for reality is rejected.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Rhed wrote:A quick note about the theory of evolution. If evolution was just “change”, “adapt”, and “natural selection”, then we would ALL be evolutionists. But, this is not the case. The heart of the controversy is that all life evolved from a single organism. Evolution adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified. And some of those terms would be considered miraculous (e.g. convergence, and co-option). Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don’t question it. Critical thinking is a thing of the past. They will use contradicting data and modify the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism. If a theory makes a prediction and doesn’t turn out the way it should, then that theory adapts to the new evidence. This gives the illusion that evolution is the best theory for all life. Everything fits! And any other opposing theory that isn’t in line with naturalism is rejected.

Thank you for that summary of dumb creationist drivel. Got any new ones?

p.s. Do creationists have a fetish for embarrassing themselves or something?

Rhed wrote:A quick note about the theory of evolution. If evolution was just “change”, “adapt”, and “natural selection”, then we would ALL be evolutionists. But, this is not the case. The heart of the controversy is that all life evolved from a single organism. Evolution adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified. And some of those terms would be considered miraculous (e.g. convergence, and co-option). Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don’t question it. Critical thinking is a thing of the past. They will use contradicting data and modify the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism. If a theory makes a prediction and doesn’t turn out the way it should, then that theory adapts to the new evidence. This gives the illusion that evolution is the best theory for all life. Everything fits! And any other opposing theory that isn’t in line with naturalism is rejected.

k

Is it canard week or something and no one told me?

"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20

It's to scale, so if you look closely, you'll see a "break" with two slashes indicating they had to cut some of it out because it was too large.

Now if anyone compares the two without prejudice, one can clearly say they are not related. Evolutionists on the other hand make up ad hoc explanations and say..."well they evolved much faster than we thought in the last 5-10 million years. Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

Since evolution is a fact to them, and since humans and chimp share a common ancestor, they come up with storytelling such as:

"We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour."

Did you count the rescuing devices used to save a theory? If you take the human-ape ancestry away from the equation, then there is no issue. Notice the ad hoc explanations to fit a theory. Too many ad hocs run into a logical fallacy called Ockham’s Razor.Genetics prove evolution except when it doesn’t. A win-win here also. If humans share a common ancestor, and the DNA doesn’t match, then it chose one of the above rescuing devices. You can’t falsify common descent.

The belief that we all evolved from a common ancestor is only that – a belief. You cannot falsify it. The Theory of Evolution goes something like this: Common Descent predicts fossils in the correct evolutionary order. When it doesn’t, the incomplete poor fossil record explains the fossils not in the correct evolutionary order; therefore, common descent isn’t affected. Other ad hoc hypothesis’ (along with the incomplete fossil record) to save common descent could include rock dating problems, taxonomic problems, limited information, etc. This is just more examples for Ochham’s Razor. Another story used to soften the blow for common descent is ghost lineages. Say you find fossils A and B, and A supposes to be older than B but the fossil record shows B older. First, you blame the incomplete fossil record. Then you draw a dotted line representing a common ancestor linking the two together showing fossil A older. A good example would be hippos and whales. You see, some believe hippos and whales share a common ancestor. However, hippos are found millions of years later in the fossil record. If that’s doesn’t work out you could also use the magic word “convergence”.

Evolutionists will say that Darwin was right and has never been falsified, but obviously they are too blind to see it. They just explain away the contradicting data and make up stories. The Theory of Evolution makes presumptions that Common Descent is a fact. That is NEVER questioned. All data is interpreted as evolving from a common ancestor. Since that event is unobservable, you need supporting evidence; not contradicting ones. If radiometric dating is right most of the time, I would believe it. However, most of the time different dating methods give almost absolutely, positively, gives different dates that are not even remotely close. If the fossil record shows gradual evolution for most organisms I would believe it. That’s not true either. If DNA matched to the closest ancestor I would believe it. But it doesn’t. The evidence shows a different tree of life. Instead of a base at the tree and eventually branching out, it shows a lawn of grass and each grass branches out due to adaptation and natural selection. And all life came from a single Creator that used similar parts like us humans do.

It's to scale, so if you look closely, you'll see a "break" with two slashes indicating they had to cut some of it out because it was too large.

Now if anyone compares the two without prejudice, one can clearly say they are not related. Evolutionists on the other hand make up ad hoc explanations and say..."well they evolved much faster than we thought in the last 5-10 million years. Nature concluded that since the separation of the chimpanzee and human lineages, comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

Since evolution is a fact to them, and since humans and chimp share a common ancestor, they come up with storytelling such as:

"We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour."

Did you count the rescuing devices used to save a theory? If you take the human-ape ancestry away from the equation, then there is no issue. Notice the ad hoc explanations to fit a theory. Too many ad hocs run into a logical fallacy called Ockham’s Razor.Genetics prove evolution except when it doesn’t. A win-win here also. If humans share a common ancestor, and the DNA doesn’t match, then it chose one of the above rescuing devices. You can’t falsify common descent.

A good way to point out the silliness of creationists' assertions. They love to argue that the difference is not 1.23% but is Much Bigger Than That. This they do by concentrating on the genome rearrangements and not on the base substitution differences in alignable parts of the genome.

One can make up various measures of difference between the genomes. Some will be considerably bigger than 1.23%, But the point that creationists* ignore is that all of these measures will show that the distance to chimps is much smaller than the distance to macacques.

The point is, of course, that the degree of similarity will decrease with distance from a common ancestor. I doesn't matter what method you come up with to calculate the "degree of similarity", if you do it consistently across all species, you will end up producing the same tree of life.

it is true and the Human and Chimp chromosomes are only about 70% similar. But the Human and Gorilla genomes are even more dissimilar, and the Human and Orangutan even more so, and so on. Basically you'd still end up with the same comparative relationships.

As is also explained in the comments there by the many experts present, large fractions of the Y chromosome left out of the alignment are repeats. Also, you are aware that the role of MSY in sperm generation is an established empirical fact? In contrast to females, who are born with their full repertoire of eggs that they carry with them their entire lives and which never undergo any cell divisions with the accompanying genome replications that would invariably carry mutations with it if it happened, in males the gametes constantly divide. Also, since the Y chromosome is the gender determining chromosome in males, it isn't passed on from females.

Human males make millions upon millions of new sperm every day, the sperm cells are constantly dividing. As a consequence over the lifetime of a human male, the genome in the sperm will accumulate mutations over their entire lifetime. On that basis alone, we should expect the Y chromosome to be significantly more divergent than the other chromosomes. There are other, directly observed factors, that contribute to the high mutation rates in sperm cells. None of this is ad-hoc. They are inferences based on direct observations.

Rhed, you are ignoring that several duplications and deletions occurred after the homo and pan groups separated. They have to take that into account when comparing the genomes. When compared properly (especially considering specific genetic markers) there is no question that we are related.

Rhed wrote:A study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees shows that they are about 30% different.

One chromosome found on one sex in humans and chimpanzees is ~30% different. Amazing! Well, humans have 46 chromosomes, and chimpanzees have 48. We already know chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes, so to make the math easier for you, we can assume 48 in both species. Now, could you please tell us what a 30% difference in one chromosome looks like compared to 48 chromosomes (assuming all chromosomes are the same length, which we both already know is incorrect)? Than one has to also remember that this chromosome is only found in chromosomal males, plus the Y chromosome is the smallest of all the chromosomes found in primates.

Rhed wrote:The belief that we all evolved from a common ancestor is only that – a belief. You cannot falsify it.

Find a genome that does not fit anywhere in the phylogenetics we have mapped and you have falsified universal common descent. The fact that creationists have not published paper after paper about this seems like good prove that they… do not actually do any science; not that it is not out there. I think it would be amazing to find a unique genome on earth and the implications that would entail.

Rhed wrote:A study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees shows that they are about 30% different.

One chromosome found on one sex in humans and chimpanzees is ~30% different. Amazing! Well, humans have 46 chromosomes, and chimpanzees have 48. We already know chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes, so to make the math easier for you, we can assume 48 in both species. Now, could you please tell us what a 30% difference in one chromosome looks like compared to 48 chromosomes (assuming all chromosomes are the same length, which we both already know is incorrect)? Than one has to also remember that this chromosome is only found in chromosomal males, plus the Y chromosome is the smallest of all the chromosomes found in primates.

Rhed wrote:The belief that we all evolved from a common ancestor is only that – a belief. You cannot falsify it.

Find a genome that does not fit anywhere in the phylogenetics we have mapped and you have falsified universal common descent. The fact that creationists have not published paper after paper about this seems like good prove that they… do not actually do any science; not that it is not out there. I think it would be amazing to find a unique genome on earth and the implications that would entail.

6 years ago on facebook I had a quiz for evolutionists. I was then posted here by the person I was debating. Here's the link:viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1638

And by the way, they all fit because evolutionists say it has. You cannot falsify it.

Read this entire article, which show how common descent is inferred in the first place, and how to falsify it. There is a specific section on how to falsify it. It's called "Potential falsification".

You now no longer have to keep saying it can't be falsified, since as that article shows, it very well can. Being the honest and open minded person you are, you will be going back to your many discussions in the past where you have claimed it cannot be falsified and make it known that you were wrong all along. Right?

I believe you are an honest and well meaning person who would change his opinion if he is shown to be wrong. Am I wrong in that belief?

Rhed wrote:6 years ago on facebook I had a quiz for evolutionists. I was then posted here by the person I was debating. Here's the link:viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1638

And by the way, they all fit because evolutionists say it has. You cannot falsify it.

Are you a biologist, anthropologist, paleontologist, or any other type of scientist/teacher that deals with evolution and evolutionary theory? If not, why should I care about a quiz you made? Now, I asked you to calculate how much difference is in one chromosome compared to the 47 others we have. Are you going to a answer this question?

Furthermore, Rumraket and I both already explained how one could falsify universal common descent. I will make a prediction right now, if it ever were falsified, it will be done by scientists and not intelligent design creationists. However, the intelligent design creationists will claim credit for it, as they always do when it comes to something they think disproves evolution.

Rhed wrote:A quick note about the theory of evolution. If evolution was just “change”, “adapt”, and “natural selection”, then we would ALL be evolutionists. But, this is not the case. The heart of the controversy is that all life evolved from a single organism. Evolution adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain that UNOBSERVED event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait, trait replacement, trait loss, co-option, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc. All of these terms are not observable, but uses them to explain away contradicting evidence to a theory. The terms are rescuing devices (ad hoc explanations) that would save a theory from being falsified. And some of those terms would be considered miraculous (e.g. convergence, and co-option). Since many people believe in The Theory of Evolution as a fact, they don’t question it. Critical thinking is a thing of the past. They will use contradicting data and modify the theory so it fits the evidence. In science, you are to gather the evidence/data and come up with a good theory. The Theory of Evolution works the other way around (i.e. think of a theory and gather supporting evidence to support it) making it a worldview for naturalism. You cannot falsify naturalism. If a theory makes a prediction and doesn’t turn out the way it should, then that theory adapts to the new evidence. This gives the illusion that evolution is the best theory for all life. Everything fits! And any other opposing theory that isn’t in line with naturalism is rejected.

If you disagree with the theory of evolution as an explanation of the biodiversity of life, then please:1. Provide another explanation2. Explain what evidence supports your explanation3. Provide a way in which your explanation could be falsified

"Slavery is morally ok" - "I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" - Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians